HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-13 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak,
please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record.
You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is
not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
March 13, 2018
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
IV.CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. February 13, 2018 Regular Meeting.
2. February 27, 2018 Study Session.
V. PUBLIC FORUM
VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-2017-01911, 181 A Street.
VII. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2018-00154
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 601 Washington Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: South Ashland Business Park LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Annexation of a 5.38-acre parcel, Zone Change from County RR-5
Rural Residential) to City E-1 (Employment), and Site Design Review approval for the phased
development of a light industrial business park for the property located at 601 Washington Street.
Limited Use/Activity Permits within the Water Resource Protection Zones of Knoll Creek and a
Possible Wetland on the property to construct a stormwater outfall and street improvements; an
Exception to Street Standards for the frontage improvements along the property's Washington
Street frontage; and a Tree Removal Permit to remove four trees greater than six-inches in
diameter at breast height (d.b.h.).COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING:
Existing County RR-5, Proposed City E-1; ASSESSOR
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104
ADA Title 1).
B
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
February 13, 2018
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main
Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Debbie Miller Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Melanie Mindlin
Haywood Norton
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Dennis Slattery, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the City Council would hear a staff update on the Croman Mill
area during their Study Session March 5, 2018. The legislative action and Comprehensive Plan amendment for 475
East Nevada were tentatively scheduled for the Council Meeting March 20, 2018. At this time, there was nothing
scheduled for the Planning Commission Study Session February 27, 2018.
AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
Chair Pearce met with the Wildfire Lands Committee two weeks ago. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman had revised
the draft ordinance. It could possibly go on the agenda for the Study Session February 27, 2018.
CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1. January 9, 2018 Regular Meeting.
Commissioners Thompson/Mindlin m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed 7-0.
PUBLIC FORUM - None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-2017-02129, 475 East Nevada Street.
The Commission had no ex parte contacts regarding the matter.
Commissioners Dawkins/Thompson m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2017-02129, 475 East Nevada Street.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 13, 2018
Page 1 of 6
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-01911
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 181 A Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Jorge Yant
A continued public hearing from December 12, 2017 to review an application for a
DESCRIPTION:
Conditional Use Permit for Marijuana Retail Sales in the existing building located at 181 A St. The applicant
withdrew the previously proposed Marijuana Production (Indoor Grow) located at 185, 191 and 195 A St
and as a result, the indoor grow is no longer a part of the application. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-
Chair Pearce read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Mindlin, Brown, Norton, and Thompson declared no ex parte contact regarding the matter.
Commissioner Miller and Chair Pearce had no ex parte contact and one site visit. Commissioner Dawkins had no ex
parte contact, had an additional site visit, read the article in the newspaper and asked the City Attorney clarifying
questions.
Staff Report
Planning Manager Maria Harris explained the planning action was a continuation of the public hearing that occurred
December 12, 2017. The property was zoned E-1 except across Oak Street where it was zoned R-2. It was in the
Historic District Overlay, the Detail Site Review Zone, and the Residential Overlay. The applicant withdrew the
indoor marijuana production. At this time, the request was for a marijuana retail sales establishment and subject to
the Marijuana Related Business Special Use Standards, Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.2.3.190.B, and the
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) criteria in AMC 18.5.4.050.A. The retail sales area was 1,850 square feet (sq. ft.).
Issues identified at the Public Hearing December 12, 2017, included:
Traffic Generation: Does the application demonstrate there is no greater adverse material effect on the
livability of the impact area from proposed marijuana retail sales use compared to the target use of general
office?
Performance of nearby intersections.
o
Daily traffic generation - not just the PM Peak Hour traffic.
o
Pedestrian and bicycle travel.
o
Residential Buffer: Measurement of the required 200 feet from a residential zone to the marijuana retail
sales establishment
Interior door.
o
The applicant submitted a revised application that consisted of the following:
Production (Indoor Grow) withdrawn from the application.
Revised Findings.
An Intersection evaluation of A Street/Oak Street/Van Ness Avenue suggested striping the center line
on Oak Street, lighting the crosswalk and removing an existing driveway apron on the Oak Street frontage.
Letter from Mark Bartholomew regarding the measurement of the 200-foot buffer.
The Public Works Department Engineering Division reviewed the materials. The revised Findings indicated a 5%
increase in traffic on A Street. They compared it to the traffic counts in 2003 when the building was used as the A
Street Market Place and added 5% to that amount. It resulted in 200 more vehicles on A Street. Staff agreed with
the Findings in the engineering study and supported the changes recommended by the engineer.
The City Attorney reviewed information submitted regarding the 200-foot buffer and agreed with the conclusions and
reasoning in the letter. When they measure to the marijuana retail sales, they should measure from the residential
Ashland Planning Commission
February 13, 2018
Page 2 of 6
zoning boundary to the use itself. He thought the definition of premises in the Special Use Standards regarding
Marijuana Related B interior door.
It did affect the measurement of the 200-foot buffer.
Outstanding Issues included:
Target Use Comparison: Does the application demonstrate there is no greater adverse material effect on the
livability of the impact area from proposed marijuana retail sales use compared to the target use of general office?
Information regarding future impacts to pedestrian and bicycle travel was limited.
Transportation capacity and development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
There was a certain amount of capacity in the transportation system. Every review for a conditional use looked at
how much transportation each use would take. Marijuana retail sales generated more traffic and parking
requirements than other uses. This retail use was under 2,000 square feet and would produce more trips than a
20,000 sq. ft. building used as general office.
Traffic Information
Daily traffic.
o
Nearby intersections.
o
Incorporation of the remainder of the building.
o
Residential Buffer
Does the interior door shown on site plan provide access to and from the portion of the larger building
o
that is closer than 200 feet to the residential zone?
The residential zoning line ran down the middle of Oak Street. It was 230 feet from that zoning line to the interior of
the building where the retail use was located. The definition of premises basically stated everything needed for the
business, including the bathrooms, had to be located in the area being measured for the use. Accessing the interior
door to the common area and entry to the building on the Oak Street side was close to the residential if measured
from Oak Street.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Dawkins wanted to know if the bathroom in the common area was the only one accessible to the
dispensary. Ms. Harris thought the applicant could answer where the restroom that served the retail area was
located. If the bathroom was within the 200-foot buffer, they would not comply with the requirement.
Ms. Harris clarified in the Detailed Site Review general office was the target use for a conditional use in the E-1 zone.
When the decision maker went through the review process, they would use general office at half the size of the
property.
Staff recommended adding a condition to close the interior door and meet all building code requirements if there
were issues with the 200-foot buffer.
Ms. Harris explained they had the meeting. The
submittal did not change the issues staff had with the application. The issues were operational, vehicle traffic, and
adjacent property development. The Planning Commission could consider whether it was appropriate to utilize some
of the valuable transportation system capacity for a small store generating relatively high traffic when other uses in
the area would develop in the future.
There were 43 parking spaces in the lot and the applicant needed twelve for the proposed retail use. The remaining
parking spaces covered parking requirements for general office use but not permitted uses. The parking
requirement was six spaces. The applicant had doubled the amount. Business owners and the property owner
would work out possible parking issues in the future as businesses developed in the building.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 13, 2018
Page 3 of 6
The last sentence in the definition of premises for marijuana use in 18.2.3.190(B)(1f) Methodology for Measuring
Separation Requirements read,
areas within a building at the location that are used in the business operation, including offices, kitchens,
Ms. Harris clarified the City used level of service to measure street capacity. Staff addressed the level of service for
A Street, Van Ness Avenue, and Oak Street. They were the most heavily impacted intersections. It was a challenge
to determine the material adverse effect. The focus on operational measurements of transportation systems could be
narrow in scope. The transportation element and the implementing policies and land use ordinance applied to all
forms of travel. Engineering information tended to focus on vehicle travel and was not a good mechanism for bicycle
and pedestrian travel.
Jay Harland/CSA Planning, LTD/4497 Brownridge Terrace/Medford, OR/The applicant would comply if
the Planning Commission concluded the interior door needed to be closed to meet the 200-foot buffer. There were
existing bathrooms in the building closer to the retail area and not restricted to the 200-foot buffer. The trip
generation would be higher than the specialty retail based on the International Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Manual.
He explained the Sandow Engineering submittal stated the intersections volumes were well within the range typical
for these types of intersections. There was no unusual queuing or blocking issues for this type of queuing. The math
substantiating the statement was included in the submittal. The area was at a level of service B until 2028. There
was adequate capacity from a throughput standpoint for the area. Kelly Sandow, the traffic engineer went out to the
site and watched vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic January 16, 2018. She spotted several soft improvements to
the system. One was adding stripping to Oak Street and Van Ness Avenue. Another would install better lighting for
the crosswalk at A Street and Oak Street. The third suggestion would replace the curb cut with a landscaped planter
strip to keep people from cutting to the other side of Van Ness Avenue. Through the approval of the project, the
street improvements would benefit the transportation system.
Questions of the Applicant
Mr. Harland confirmed the applicant was not proposing any type of production at the site. The current lease was only
for the dispensary and not cultivation. There were no plans to lease for production. The applicant had no intention to
add production after the retail approval.
There was a bathroom located near the retail site. It was not uncommon for tenants to share restroom facilities.
Commissioner Miller expressed concerns the traffic analysis was inadequate. She thought First Street and Pioneer
Street should have been included. The peak traffic for the Ashland Food Coop occurred between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00
p.m. It was a one-way street with people exiting on A Street. Mr. Harland responded the traffic engineer observed
traffic in that location and did not encounter anything that could cause capacity issues. Commissioner Miller noted the
study occurred in January, the quietest month in town. It would be more accurate if the study happened on a spring
day. Commissioner Mindlin wanted to know if they had reviewed other studies of the area. Specifically, studies that
included all modes of transportation during other seasons. Community Development Director Bill Molnar added the
Public Works Department had explained it was not uncommon to evaluate traffic studies this time of year. Pedestrian
and bicycle traffic were also issues.
Public Testimony
Brian Comnes/Ashland/Reiterated Commissioner f traffic. He walked or drove through the project
area daily. Where A Street, Oak Street, and Van Ness Avenue connected was confusing. He had personally
Ashland Planning Commission
February 13, 2018
Page 4 of 6
witnessed near accidents with vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists. Where First Street came out to A Street, the tight
made it difficult to see. Any increase in traffic due to the retail establishment in that area would
increase safety risk. The rafting company frequently blocked half the street. It was not a desirable place to increase
traffic. He expressed concern about the potential of people ingesting the products they just purchased then driving
away impaired. He was opposed to the project and suggested the Commission oppose it as well.
Robin Popin/Ashland/Was baffled to be there. She lived in the Railroad District and described the area.
The Plexis building was a historic building and the area caused traffic issues. She thought that cannabis
dispensaries had to be on major thoroughfares in Ashland, not small streets. She did not consider A Street a
thoroughfare. The traffic was bad. It was a residential community that co-existed with commercial property. The
marijuana dispensary did not belong in the neighborhood. She would be profoundly disappointed to have purchased
her property if this project went through.
Mr. Harland addressed traffic generation and explained the actual retail use generated less than one trip per minute.
Ms. Harris shared the number of PM Peak Hour for specialty retail was 5 trips per 1,000 square feet. General office
PM Peak Hour was 1.49 per 1,000 square feet. Mr. Harland added trip generation for marijuana retail was higher.
Deliberations & Decision
Ms. Harris confirmed Clear Creek Drive was zoned for E-1 and not in a historical district. The building for the project
was a historic building but the applicants were not making any changes to the exterior.
The Commission discussed how using the bathroom in the hallway would change the 200-foot buffer to the residential
area on Oak Street. The applicant could access bathrooms located behind the retail site. The Commission could also
place a condition on the application to permanently close the interior door. There were multiple entrances for fire exits.
There was a concern whether the Oak Street door would be used as an entry. At this point, without using the hallway
bathroom, the applicant complied with the 200-foot requirement.
A Street was not a major street but the Comprehensive Plan allowed marijuana retail on a neighborhood collector
through a conditional use permit. The Commission voted to include A Street for potential marijuana retail because the
street was commercial in nature.
Commissioner Mindlin did not think the applicant met the burden of proof that there was no adverse material effect
based on the traffic. The proposed project would generate six times more traffic during peak hour than the specialty
retail rate. There was no analysis done regarding pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The study in January did not exhibit
a coherent picture of traffic impact later in the year. The Commission majority agreed the applicant had not met the
burden of proof for traffic.
Commissioner Dawkins disagreed and thought because this was marijuana based, it was being singled out. Current
traffic issues were generated by the Ashland Food Coop and Ace Hardware. In that case, no other retail uses should
be allowed in that area due to the increase in traffic. Commissioner Brown commented when the Ashland Food Coop
opened at that location, no one had understood the traffic impact. Traffic was also not addressed when Ace Hardware
was developed. They could not continue allowing high traffic uses in the area just because two other high traffic uses
were there. Additionally, the code based the traffic for that particular building on general office use.
Commissioner Norton thought the issues could have been mitigated or addressed better. Commissioner Thompson
noted when the proposed use was compared to the general office use it did show material difference and impact. The
other uses allowed had an effect of five per 1,000 square feet. The proposed use was 28 per 1,000, five and a half
times the impact. The Commission had to take the congestion in the area and the difficulty navigating the street
seriously.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 13, 2018
Page 5 of 6
Chair Pearce observed the city engineer did not have a problem with the traffic report. He was not sure there was an
adverse material effect here. However, the lack of information on traffic impacts made it hard to make a decision. The
traffic report did not take into consideration bicycle and pedestrian traffic in May or June. He did not think the applicant
had provided the Commission with the quality of information needed for an approval.
Commissioners Miller/Brown m/s to deny the application for PA-2017-01911. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners
Miller, Pearce, Mindlin, Brown, Norton, and Thompson, YES, Commissioner Dawkins, NO. Motion passed 6-1.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Submitted by,
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
February 13, 2018
Page 6 of 6
B
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
February 27, 2018
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Melanie Mindlin Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Haywood Norton Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Debbie Miller Dennis Slattery
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced a public hearing would occur at the Planning Commission
meeting March 13, 2018. It was for an annexation and a site review for a business park development at Jefferson
Avenue and Washington Street. At the Study Session March 27, 2018, the Commission would discuss a public hearing
for the Accessory Residential Unit Standards and possibly another update regarding the Wildfire Lands
Ordinance. The Tree Commission and Wildfire Mitigation Commission will have reviewed the ordinance by then. The
Planning Commission meeting April 10, 2018, could have the continuation of the accessory residential unit at
232 Nutley Street. The applicant had until March 31, 2018, to request a continuance. Public Works Director
Paula Brown and the Planning Division were reconvening the System Development Charge (SDC) Commission.
Ms. Brown may contact Commissioner Brown to rejoin the commission.
PUBLIC FORUM
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.Update on Wildfire Lands Ordinance Revisions
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained the Community Planning Assistance for Wildfires (CPAW) assessed the
existing ordinance and the proposed ordinance. They provided recommendations and best practices. The ordinance
would come back to the Planning Commission March 27, 2018, following a review by the Tree Commission and the
Wildfire Mitigation Commission.
The ordinance standards were broken into two broad categories. A requirement for a fire prevention and control plan,
and requirements for general fuel management practices. A presentation on Wildfire Development Standards included:
Fire Prevention and Control Plan Applicability
Subdivisions
Performance Standards Developments
Land Partitions
Site Design Review
Not required for new single family dwellings or additions
Ashland Planning Commission
February 27, 2018
Page 1 of 6
Code Refs: 18.3.10.100.A.1
Fire Prevention and Control Plan Submittals
Similar to formal planning application plan requirements regarding:
Site, building locations, drive locations, grades, hydrant locations, landscape plan.
o
Requires a tree and vegetation management plan:
Tree Removals
o
Areas to be thinned
o
Schedule for thinning and removal
o
Code Refs: 18.3.10.100.A.2
Fire Prevention and Control Plan Approval
The wildfire hazards present on the property has been reduced to a reasonable degree, balanced with the need
to preserve and/or plant a sufficient number of trees and plants for erosion prevention wildlife habitat,
enhancement of water resources, and aesthetics.
Code Refs: 18.3.10.100.A.3 & A.4
The Fire Department Fire Marshal or designee would conduct the inspection on site to ensure the plants were thinned in
a sufficient manner.
Maintenance
Provisions for the maintenance of a required Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be recorded on the property
to ensure continued maintenance.
Code Refs: 18.3.10.100.A.3 & A.4
General Fuel Modification Areas - Applicability
Applies to new buildings, additions, and decks increasing lot coverage by 200 sq. ft. or greater.
Full extent of the property for new structures.
Code Refs: 18.3.10.100.B.1
General Fuel Modification Areas - Requirements
Remove all dead or dying vegetation.
No new planting of plants listed on the new Prohibited Flammable Plant List
Removal of Prohibited Flammable Plants
No combustible materials within 5 feet of a new structure or addition, including mulch.
Flammable trees (not deciduous) which are to be retained:
Provide a 10-foot clearance to canopy from new building or additions.
o
Must be maintained to remove understory growth and clearance from the .
o
Allowance for an exception if pruning the tree to this extent will compromise its health.
o
Existing fire resistant trees to be retained:
Pruned to not touch a structure.
o
o
Allowances to preserve vegetation for erosion control, riparian and wetland preservation.
Roof Material (new or 50% re-roof) to be fire resistant (Class B).
Code Refs: 18.3.10.100.B.2 & B.3
The primary intent of the ordinance was to expand wildfire overlay to incorporate the entire city.
Implementation Requirements
Compliance with Fire Prevention and Control Plan, and General Fuel Modification standards, to be completed
prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property.
Fire Code Official inspection and approval
Ongoing Maintenance
Code Refs: 18.3.10.100.C
Ashland Planning Commission
February 27, 2018
Page 2 of 6
Adjustments to Fire Prevention Control Plan and Fuel modification requirements
New flexibility to address unique on-site conditions.
New Section 18.3.10.100.D and E
Fire Code Official and Planning Director may waive or reduce submittal requirements or fuel modification
requirements if on-site conditions are already sufficient to reduce fire risk.
Written Request
o
Site Inspection by Fire Code Official
o
Evaluation of criteria
o
Code refs: 18.3.10.100.D
Amendments to approved plans
Minor Amendments
Administrative
o
Exceptions
Type 1 Planning Action
o
Code Refs: 18.3.10.100.E & F
Physical and Environmental Constraints
Tree Removal
Amends regulated conifer with the definition of
o
Allows removal of regulated trees in hillside lands for trees removed as part of an approved Fire
o
Prevention and Control Plan, or as approved to implement a comprehensive general fuel modification
area.
Submission Requirements - Staff advisor may waive a submittal requirement if not necessary to make a
decision on an application.
Code Refs: 18.3.10.020.A.3, 18.3.10.040, 18.3.10.090.D
Staff modified tree removal to exempt a tree if it was part of a fire prevention and control plan and required to meet fill
modification areas in the wildfire ordinance. It would also exempt tree replacement mitigation requirements.
Another modification changed removing and replacing a tree because it was too close to the proposed addition or
structure. In terms of what was required for a plant submittal, the staff advisor could waive a submission
requirement if it was unnecessary to make a decision on the application.
Tree Removal Permits
Amends exemption section:
Newly requires a tree removal permit for
o
large enough to be partitioned or subdivided.
Currently, lots occupied by a single family dwelling are exempt regardless of size.
o
The amendment addresses situations in which a site occupied by a single dwelling is cleared of
o
trees under the exemption, in advance of an application to subdivide or partition.
Applies in R-1, R-2, R-3, and HC zoned properties.
o
HC zone added as Mountain Meadows is comprised of a large number of small lot single family
o
homes on HC zoned property.
Code Refs: 18.5.7.C
Alison Lerch, the fire adapted community coordinator spoke to the Wildfire Readiness and Preparedness approach. The
ordinance addressed new homes and additions and would only capture a fraction of the city. The Fire Department
looked at how to have wildfire reduction citywide. In addition to the ordinance, it required education and incentives. The
Firewise USA Program currently had 28 individual neighborhoods involved.
Fire Adapted Ashland
1. Expand the Wildfire Hazard Zone to include the entire city. Wildfire risk is citywide. The City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Commission
February 27, 2018
Page 3 of 6
Comprehensive Plan would be amended to change the Wildfire Lands Overlay.
2. Adopt an updated Wildfire Lands Ordinance for new construction and additions that require vegetation
clearance and fire-resistant landscaping.
3.Adopt a Municipal Code (Health & Sanitation Chapter) restricting new plantings of known flammable species
identified on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List.
4.Increase wildfire safety through a citywide grant incentive program encouraging residents to remove known
flammable plant species and implement fire resistant landscaping.
The Fire Department was conducting parcel by parcel assessments of every home in city limits and expected to finish
the following week. The data collected would provide information on highest hazard homes and areas. It would enable
the Fire Department to apply for a Predisaster Mitigation grant through FEMA as well as others. The Predisaster
Mitigation grant would provide up to $3,000,000 to help facilitate voluntary removal of flammable plant species and
creating fire resistant landscaping. The grant could also go towards retrofitting existing structures and building materials.
5.Continue wildfire mitigation and risk reduction of existing buildings through the Firewise USA program.
6.Adopt wildfire building codes within city limits so new construction uses ignition resistant building materials.
Prohibited Flammable Plant List
Adopted into Chapter 9, Health and Sanitation.
Reference in the wildfire development standards.
Application City Wide
To reduce the risk of damage to property and persons by the spread of fire due to highly flammable
o
plant material.
and decks.
o
Fire resistant building materials and construction - State of Oregon
Fire Code Amendments
Building Code Amendments
Fire Division Chief-Fire Marshal Ralph Sartain addressed Appendix W Building Construction. It was a code proposal that
had essential ignition resistant development for homes in the wildfire risk assessment. It would make them less
vulnerable to combust during wildfires. The ignition resistant construction elements would reduce the house to house
ignition potential resulting in a community risk reduction. Oregon construction was already developing many wildfire risk
reduction building. Changes would include a cap on gutters, under mount open exposed decking and flooring. Roofing
material was already in City code. Windows were in the construction code and would not change.
The Building Codes Division would review the code proposal and add it as an appendix to the 2014 Fire Code and
eventually to the 2018 Fire Code appendix. The state would adopt it first then the City.
Mr. Goldman spoke to the tree removal exemption in A2. An existing conifer over 18 inches could be retained and the
new building or addition could be in close proximity. If it could be trimmed back to provide 10 feet of canopy spacing.
However, if that clearance jeopardized the health of the tree, it could be retained. It would not provide the same level of
fire protection. Smaller trees could potentially be removed.
In the ordinance, A. Requirements for Subdivisions, Performance Standards Developments, Site Design Review
or Partitions. (3) Approval Criteria would require discretion in reviewing a subdivision by the Commission. It identified
balancing with the need to preserve a sufficient number of trees and plants for erosion prevention on steep slopes. An
applicant going through a hillside development would have a geotechnical engineer determine if the trees were a vital
part of maintaining that slope. An applicant could also argue retaining trees to preserve wildlife habitats. It was
balancing goals in terms of what the community wanted to retain. Community Development Director Bill Molnar added in
regards to the approval criteria, the ultimate burden was on the applicant.
Ms. Lerch, the City Conservation Specialist, a Wildfire Mitigation Commissioner and the Shooting Star Nursery
Ashland Planning Commission
February 27, 2018
Page 4 of 6
developed a list of plants for drought tolerant and pollinator-friendly gardens. It also included plants that required
protection from deer. The Water Wise Landscaping website had a Firewise plant list as well.
Mr. Goldman clarified all new buildings that would increase lot coverage by 200 square feet or more would have a fuel
modification area within 30-feet of the new building. Submission requirements for the fire prevention and control
plan pertained to performance standards subdivisions, preliminary plat of a subdivision, and site design review. Site
design review required for accessory residential units was not included. They would have to make a general fuel
modification requirement and would not provide a fire prevention and control plan.
Planning Commission comment suggested revising the language for screening a hedge. Other comments expressed
concerns regarding enforcement, Home Owner Associations (HOA) and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(CC&Rs). Another comment suggested using hardy plank or a metal gate for the last five feet of a fence that connected
to a house.
Division Chief-Fire Marshal Sartain spoke to fire resistant wood products that met Class B. He noted city code exceeded
state requirements for roofs. Ms. Lerch described education outreach and videos that would be available.
Staff would incorporate language regarding fences and revise wording in Section 2(A)3) Approval Criteria.
UPDATES
A.Accessory Residential Unit Standards
Planning Manager Maria Harris explained currently adding an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) required planning
approval, site design review, and a pre-application conference. It also required a Type I application fee, and the time and
resources to put it together. The ordinance would exempt ARUs less than 500 square feet from the planning approval
process if they were attached to a home or within a building. For a new residence, someone could incorporate
an ARU into the design. It had to be less than 500 square feet with two parking spaces on site for the
primary residence. It also needed on-street parking on one side of the street within 200 feet on either side. If it
met those requirements, it could be done with a building permit. She clarified R-1 included R-1-5, R-1-7.5, and R-1-10.
Due to the number of qualifiers, staff created a new section under 18.2.3.040 Accessory Residential Unit titled A.
Exemptions. Suggestions from the Planning Commission resulted in A. 5 and A. 6. The exemption would not apply to
the multifamily zones because on-street parking was more heavily used. Mr. Molnar added the downtown parking
management study looked at parking in the early morning and end of day. They did not detect issues with parking.
For 18.2.3.040 B. R-1 Zone, (2), staff removed
density of developments created under the Performance In B(3), the
maximum gross habitable floor area of an ARU did not come up often enough to add the language. B(6) and B(7) were
the design standards staff had introduced. They were in the site design chapter. Staff moved them to this section
because it was easier to read. B(7) to,
outdoor living areas (e.g., balconies or decks) on the second story shall be oriented towards the interior of the
Staff would clarify it further to indicate ARUs above a detached structure
and add language to minimize the
In 18.2.3.040(B)(C) RR Zone section, they removed (1) and (2) regarding building on lands with less than 25% slope and
access to an improved city street. Hillside Development standards would address slopes that were 25% greater. If
someone did an addition that was 300 square feet or less, it would not require a physical environmental constraints
permit.
In 18.2.3.040, E. NN Zones and F. NM Zones were added. It would allow exempt ARUs less than 500 square feet to be
in those zones. The Normal Neighborhood and North Mountain plans had ARUs written in the code and adopted before
Ashland Planning Commission
February 27, 2018
Page 5 of 6
they were developed. The proposed ordinance would allow a building permit only for exempted ARUs less than 500
square feet instead of going through site design. The number of units was not locked in. It was the number of lots
created through the subdivision process. The ARU standards specifically stated they were not subject to the density
requirements.
Commissioner Norton explained the conditions of approval for his subdivision locked in the number of units, not lots. Ms.
Harris commented most of the subdivisions over the past 30 years were performance standard subdivisions. It brought
up whether the community had the ability to acknowledge changing conditions and adjust policies. The community
decided through the regional planning process the city would not expand boundaries and accommodate future growth
within city limits instead. Mr. Molnar noted there were neighborhoods with subdivisions that were platted with a home
owners association that restricted additional units through their CC&Rs. Commissioner Norton did not think the public
was clear on what the ordinance would allow. They might not understand that homes with ARUs were essentially
duplexes. He stressed the importance of having a public process and suggested notifying all of the Home Owner
Associations in Ashland about the proposed ordinance.
Ms. Harris clarified 18.2.3.040 (B) as one ARU was allowed per lot and the maximum number of dwelling units shall not
exceed two. It was an exemption from site design review and did not permit an unlimited number of ARUs. Applicants
had to meet all the qualifiers under (B). For 500 square feet ARUs in historic districts, a planner reviewed the building
permits with another review by the historic review board. It went through the noticing process and was appealable to the
Planning Commission. The standards were the dimensional requirements of the zone. The following would not be
required:
A landscape plan
Open space for the ARU
Planting street trees
A full Historic Commission review if applicable
Mr. Molnar added it would go to the Historic Commission as part of an advisory. If the 500 square foot addition was part
of the site review it had to meet the mandatory standards in terms of compatible materials. Ms. Harris explained it did not
have to happen for a single family home. An applicant could build the same volume for a house that was allowed under
the standard requirements of the zone. It did not make a difference if the new section was an ARU. A 500 square foot
addition for a house in a historic district required a building permit only. It did not go through a site design review.
One Commission comment suggested clarifying parking further.
Ms. Harris addressed Table 18.4.3.040 Automobile Parking Space by Use. She separated the requirements for a
single family dwelling into its own box and added another box for ARUs. They used the same standard used for cottage
housing where one space was required for an ARU.
Staff would incorporate suggested changes and take the opportunity to update typographical errors and redundant
information in the ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
Submitted by,
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
February 27, 2018
Page 6 of 6
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 13, 2018
)
FINDINGS,
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2017-01911, A REQUEST FOR A)
CONCLUSIONS,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MARIJUANA RETAIL SALES LOCATED)
& ORDERS
AT 181 A ST.)
)
APPLICANT:
Jorge Yant)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1)Tax lots#14600 and 14900of Map 39 1E 09BAarelocated on A St.andzoned E-1, Employment.
The properties are located in the Detail Site Review, Historic District and Residential overlays.
2)The project site is comprised of two lots and includes a historic building datedat 1912 that was
originally constructed for the Ashland Fruit and Produce Association. The building is bordered by Oak St.
on the west, A St. on the south and the railroad tracks and associated right-of-way to the north. The eastern
end of the building is next to the private parking lot that is part of the development and serves the subject
building. The parking lot includes 43 parking spaces. According to the application, the building is 16,225
square feet in size and according to City of Ashland maps is approximately 400 feet in length.
3)According to the City of Ashland Railroad Addition National Register Historic District
Nomination, the business known as Oak Tank and Steel moved into the building in 1945. In the early
2000’s, the site was converted from the light industrial use to the A Street Marketplace whichincluded
retail, food service, nightclub, light industrial and office uses.Subsequently, Plexis Healthcare Systems,
Inc. acquired the building and converted the building to office space for their corporate offices. However,
Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. moved to Medford and the property is currently vacant.
4)The original application included a request for Site Design Review approval under AMC 18.5.2
for marijuana production (indoor grow)and a Conditional Use Permit for marijuana retail sales.After the
first public hearing on December 12, 2017, the applicant withdrew the application for the marijuana
production use by a letter submitted on December 28, 2017.The applicantsubmitted a revised application
for theConditional Use Permit for a marijuana retail useon January 29, 2018 and supplemental
transportation information on February 13, 2018.
5)In the letter submitted on December28, 2017, the applicant also requested to move the second
public hearing to February 13, 2018and granted a 60-day extension the 120-day review period. The
extension moves the deadline for the required final decision date by the City to May 2, 2018.
6)The hearing before the Planning Commission involvesa request for a Conditional Use Permit for
marijuana retail sales located at181 A. St.The proposal is to use the portion of the building located at 181
A St. for a marijuana retail sales use. The application describes the proposed marijuana retail use as 1,850
PA #2017-01911
February 13, 2018
Page 1
square feet in size. Any marijuana-related businesses must also meet the applicable special use standards
in AMC 18.2.3.190.B.
AMC 18.5.4.050.A
7)The criteria for aConditional Use Permitare described in as follows.
1.
That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which
the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan
policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
2.That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage,
paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and
will be provided to the subject property.
3.That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the
impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of
the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of
the proposed use on the impact area,the following factors of livability of the impact area
shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone.
a.Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
b.Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian,
bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of
facilities.
c.Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
d.Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
e.Generation of noise, light, and glare.
f.The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
g.Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the
proposed use.
4.A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted
pursuant to this ordinance.
5.For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the
approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows.
f.E-1.The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2Base Zones and Allowed
Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance
requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to
area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements.
Ashland Municipal
8)The special use standards for Marijuana-Related Businesses are described in
CodeAMC)18.2.3.190.B
(as follows.
PA #2017-01911
February 13, 2018
Page 2
B.Marijuana-Related Businesses.
1.Marijuana-related businesses may require Site Design Review under chapter 18.5.2or a
Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18.5.4. See Table 18.2.2.030–Uses Allowed by
Zone for zones where marijuana-related businesses are allowed. See definition of
marijuana-related businesses in part 18.6. Marijuana-related businesses shall meet all of
the following requirements.
a.The business must be located in a permanent building and may not locate in a trailer,
cargo container, or motor vehicle. Outdoor marijuana production, cultivation, and
storage of merchandise, raw materials, or other material associated with the business
are prohibited.
b.Any modifications to the subject site or exterior of a building housing the business must
be consistent with the Site Design Use Standards, and obtain Site Design Review
approval if required by section 18.5.2.020. Security bars or grates on windows and
doors are prohibited.
c.The business must provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or by-products;
such remnants or by-productsshall not be placed within the business’ exterior refuse
containers.
d. Light and Glare.Shield lighting systems and use window coverings to confine light and
glare from light systems associated with indoor cultivation so as to confine light and
glare tothe interior of the structure. Grow light systems within a greenhouse are
prohibited.
e.Building Code.Any structure, accessory structure, electrical service, plumbing, or
mechanical equipment (e.g., lighting, fans, heating and cooling systems) associated
with a business shall satisfy the Building Code requirements and obtain all required
building permits prior to installation.
f.Methodology for Measuring Separation Requirements.The following methodology
shall be used for marijuana related-businesses that are required to be separated by
a specific distance (i.e., marijuana production facility, marijuana wholesale facility,
marijuana retail outlet). For the purposes of determining the distance between a
marijuana related-business and another marijuana-related business, “within 1,000
feet” means a straight line measurement in a radius extending for 1,000 feet or less in
every direction from the closest point anywhere on the premises of an approved
marijuana related-business to the closest point anywhere on the premises of a
proposed marijuana-related business of the same type. If any portion of the premises
of a proposed marijuana related-business is within 1,000 feet of an approved
marijuana related business of the same type, it may not be approved. For the purpose
of this section, premises is all public and private enclosed areas within a building at
the location that are used in the business operation, including offices, kitchens, rest
rooms, and storerooms.
g.The property owner shall record a declaration which waives any claim or right to hold
the City liable for damages they or a tenant may suffer from state or federal
PA #2017-01911
February 13, 2018
Page 3
enforcement actions for activities the City permits as a result of its approval of the
proposed use or development once such approval is granted. Furthermore, the owner
and tenant agrees not to unreasonably disobey the City’s order to halt or suspend
business if state or federal authorities order or otherwise subject the City to
enforcement to comply with laws in contradiction to the continued operations of the
business as permitted under section 18.2.3.190.
h.A marijuana-related business must obtain an approved license or registration from the
State of Oregon and meet all applicable Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon
Administrative Rules.
2.Marijuana Laboratories, Processing, Production, and Wholesale.In addition to the
standards described in subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1, above, marijuana laboratories,
processing, production, and wholesale shall meet the following requirements as
applicable. See definition of marijuana processing and production in part 18.6.
a.Marijuana laboratories, processing, production, and wholesale shall be located 200
feet or more from residential zones.
b.Marijuana Production.
i.Marijuana production shall be limited to 5,000 square feet of gross leasable floor
area per lot.
ii. A marijuana production facility shall be located more than 1,000 feet from another
marijuana production facility. See subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1.f for methodology for
measuring the required distance between marijuana related-businesses.
c.Marijuana Wholesale.A marijuana wholesale facility shall be located more than 1,000
feet from another marijuana wholesale facility. See subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1.f for
methodology for measuring the required distance between marijuana related-
businesses.
3.Marijuana Retail Sales.In addition to the standards described above in subsection
18.2.3.190.B.1, marijuana retail sales shall meet the following requirements. See definition
of marijuana retail sales in part 18.6.
a.Location.
i.Marijuana retail sales are allowed if located on a property with a boundary line
adjacent to a boulevard.
ii.Marijuana retail sales, except as allowed above in subsection 18.2.3.190.B.3.a.i,
must be located 200 feet or more from a residential zone and are subject to a
Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18.5.4.
iii. Marijuana retail sales are not permitted in the Downtown Design Standards Zones.
iv.A marijuana retail sales outlet shall be located more than 1,000 feet from another
marijuana retail sales outlet. Medical and recreational marijuana retail sales do not
need to be separated by 1,000 feet if located together in one building if the
configuration meets all applicable Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon
PA #2017-01911
February 13, 2018
Page 4
Administrative Rules. No more than two registrations or licenses issued by the
State of Oregon (e.g., a medical dispensary registration and a recreational sales
license) may be located in one building. See subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1.f for
methodology for measuring the required distance between marijuana related-
businesses.
b.Drive-up Use.The marijuana retail sales outlet must not include a drive-up use.
9)The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held public hearingsonDecember 12,
2017 and February 13, 2018at which time testimony was heard and evidence was presented. Subsequent to
the closing of the February 13, 2018 hearing, the Planning Commission deniedthe application.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, and MiscellaneousExhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. FINDINGSOF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
2.1The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimonyand the exhibits received.The Commissioners disclosed
at the public hearing that all Commissioners had visited the site or were very familiar with the site and
surrounding area.
2.2The Planning Commission received 38written commentson the planning action that are included in
the record. Additionally, eight individuals provided testimony at the December 12, 2017 hearing and two
individuals provided testimony at the February 13, 2018 public hearing. The minutes from the public hearings
are included in the record.
2.3The Planning Commissionfinds that the proposal for a Conditional Use Permit for marijuana retail
sales does not meet all applicable approval criteria in AMC 18.5.4.050.A.
2.4For the reasons discussed below in this section, the Planning Commission finds that the application
PA #2017-01911
February 13, 2018
Page 5
does not demonstrate that the proposal satisfies the third approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit in
AMC 18.5.4.050.A.3. Specifically, the application does notdemonstrate that the proposed marijuana
retail use will not have agreater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared
to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the E-1 zone in terms of two of the seven factors
to be considered including:b. generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets,and f. the
development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.Under the Ashland
Municipal Code Title 18 Land Use, the applicant has the burden of producing evidence showing that the
application satisfies all applicable approval criteria.In this case, the applicant has failed to meet the
burden.
2.5The Conditional Use Permit approval criteria establish the target use in the E-1 zone in AMC
18.5.4.050.A.5.f as general office uses developed at an intensity of .50 floor to area ratioin the Detail Site
Review overlay. The floor-area ratio or FAR is defined in AMC 18.6.1.030 as “The gross floor area of all
building on a lot divided by the lot area.” In this case, the site area is 40,738 square feet. As a result, the
target use of the site is a general office building that is half of the size of the siteor 20,369 square feet in
size.According to the application, the existing building on the site is 16,255 square feet in size.
2.6The Planning Commission finds that the proposed marijuana retail use is projected to generate
significantly more vehicle trips than the target use of general office. Thetrafficanalysis included in the
applicationestimatesthat amarijuana retail salesuse creates28.2 trips for every 1,000 square feet of floor
area during the p.m. peak hour. In comparison, the applicant’s trafficanalysis showsa rate of 1.49 for
every 1,000 square feet of office floor area during thep.m. peak hour. Therefore,a marijuana retail use
generates18 times more traffic thana general officeuse of the same size based on the trip generation rates
provided in the application.
The revised application and February 13, 2018 trafficanalysis do not address the trip generation of the
target use of general office. Using the rate for general officeof 1.49, the target use of 20,369 square feet
of general office would create 30 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour.
The proposal is to use 1,850 square feet of the existing building for a marijuana retail use which would
generate 52 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour. The proposal is to use the remaining 14,375 square
feet of the existing building for general office which would generate 21 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak
hour. Therefore,the total number of vehicle trips generated by the proposal would be 73 vehicle trips
during the p.m. peakhour.
In conclusion, the proposal would generate 73 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour, which is more than
doublethe 30 vehicle trips that the target use of 20,369 square feet of general office would generate during
the p.m. peak hour. The increase in trips of the proposal over the target use is due to the number of trips
generated by marijuana retail sales. Again, an 1,850 square foot space would generate 52 vehicle trips
during the p.m. peak hour. In comparison, a general office use of the same size, 1,850 square feet,would
generateonlythreevehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour.
2.7The Planning Commissionfinds that the application does notadequately address the material
PA #2017-01911
February 13, 2018
Page 6
effectof the additionalvehicle trips generated by the proposed marijuana retail use on intersections in the
area. An intersection evaluation of A St./Oak St/ Van Ness Ave. is included in the revised application
(Exhibit 12).The intersection evaluation was based on data collected on January 9, 2018 and January 10,
2018.The original application included atrip generation analysis (Exhibit 11) that concludes that the
added traffic to the intersections of A St./Pioneer and A St/First would have negligible impact to the
intersections.
Testimony was receivedat the February 13, 2018 public hearingraisingconcerns about transportation
impacts. In particular, the testimony was that the effect of additional project traffic would be greater during
the spring, summer and early fall when there was increased pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle trafficduring
the Oregon Shakespeare Festival with visitors traveling tonearby travelers’ accommodationsand
attractions in the Railroad Addition Historic District. In addition,the testimony indicated that the
pedestrian and bicycle traffic is further increased during the spring, summer and early fall when the
weather is conducive to walking and bicyclingin contrast to early Januarywhen the traffic data was
collected.The testimony concluded that the additional traffic from the proposed project would adversely
affect traffic during the much busier times of year. The person testifyingindicated that he walked or drove
in the area daily and that the A St./Oak St./ Van Ness Ave. intersection is confusing and that he has
personally witnessed near accidents involving vehicles, pedestriansand cyclists.As the Commissioners
indicated prior to the hearing, many of them were also familiar with the area and they knew that traffic
was far more congested during the spring, summer and early fall.
The Planning Commissionfound the testimony about significant congestion and greater traffic impacts
during the spring, summer and fall months to be credible and that the application does not adequately
respond or address the issues. The Planning Commission finds that theintersection analysis of A St./Oak
St./VanNess Ave. provided by the applicant wasunreliable because it is based on data collected during
one of the slowest traffic times of the year in Ashland.
The testimony at the public hearings also stated there was significant traffic congestion at other area
intersections including the intersection of A St./Pioneer St. and A St./First St. because of existing usesof
the Ashland Food Co-op and Ashland Hardware. The testimony indicated that the traffic from the
proposed project would adversely affect those busy intersections. The Planning Commission found the
applicant’s transportation analysis failed to adequately address the potential impacts at these nearby
intersections.
2.8The Planning Commission finds that the application does not demonstrate thatthe additional
vehicle trips from the proposed marijuana retail use will not have a greater adverse material effect on
pedestrian and bicycle travel in the impact areacompared to the target use of general office. The
application did not include an assessment or information regarding pedestrian or bicycle use or pedestrian
and bicycle conflicts/accidents with vehicle traffic in the impact area. The Planning Commission finds
that the sidewalk on A St. is a relatively narrow curbside sidewalk and bicycles are required to share the
travel lanes with motorized vehicles. Several Commissioners noted that the Central Ashland Bike Path
PA #2017-01911
February 13, 2018
Page 7
ends at Sixth St. and bicyclists cannot bypass the congested area but instead must use A St. In the written
comments and testimony received, the area was described as a walkable neighborhood and shopping area
that residents regularlyuse and travel to and through on footand bicycle.Additionally, testimony was
received indicating high volumes of all types of traffic including pedestrian and bicyclists in the impact
area, especially in spring, summer and early fall.The Planning Commission finds this testimony credible.
Three individuals testified aboutthe blind corners on A St., conflicts between pedestrian, bicycle and
motor vehicle traffic,and traffic congestionin the general area of the project at the December 12, 2017
public hearing. In addition, five written comments were received raising the a variety of transportation
issues including concern regarding increased traffic in an area used by largenumbers of pedestrians and
bicyclists, traffic in an area that is already congested, the inability of the area to handle traffic associated
with another major business, concerns about availability of on-street parking, and a request to consider
impacts on the crosswalk and pedestrian traffic at the busy intersection of A St./Oak St. The application
does not provide information about pedestrian and bicycle traffic in the area or how the proposal could
address the reported conflicts between vehicle and pedestrianand bicycle traffic in the A St. corridor or
outside of the A St./Oak St./VanNess Ave. intersection.
2.9The Planning Commission finds that the application does not demonstrate that additional vehicle
trips from the proposed marijuana retail use will not have a greater adverse material effect the development
of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plancompared to the target use of general
office.The application does not addresswhether traffic from the proposed marijuana retail sales use will
reduce transportation capacity for future permitted uses and development in the vicinity. Specifically, the
application assumes the remainder of the subject building will generate relatively few trips and doesn’t
clearly address the transportation system capacity in relation to development of nearby properties.The
applicationalso only addresseesthe size of theexisting buildingand doesnot addressthetarget use against
which impactsmust be measured.
Mostof the square footage of the building on the subject property, approximately 14,000 square feet
outside of the proposed marijuana retail use,is vacant. The applicant’strafficanalysisassumes a general
office use butthe building could house a range of outright permitted uses such as retail and restaurants.
Retail and restaurant uses typically generate more vehicle trips than general office and this range of
possible uses in the remainder of the building is not discussed.
The Response to Staff Report Addendum Comments Regarding Traffic by Sandow Engineering that was
received on February 13, 2018 assumes a 2.73 percent growth rate in vehicle traffic based on the City of
Ashland Transportation System Plan. The analysis predictsthe A St./Oak St./VanNess Ave. intersection
will operate at Level of Service (LOS) B in the p.m. peak hourin 2028but as discussed above, the
prediction is based on background trafficmeasured during the slowest traffic time of year (i.e., on January
9 and 10) rather than on the busier spring,summer and early fall timeperiods. The LOS analysis is not
provided for A St./Pioneer St. and A St./First St.It is not clear ifthe 2.73 percent growth rate used in the
analysis incorporates development of closely situated sites such as the approximately 43,000 square foot
PA #2017-01911
February 13, 2018
Page 8
mixed-use building that was approved at the intersection of VanNess Ave. and Water St., vacant parcels
on Clear Creek Dr. as well as the future development of the approximately 15-acre parcel of railroad
property to the northeast of the site.The Planning Commission finds thatthe transportation analysis does
not adequately addressthe cumulative impacts of the proposal and the futuredevelopmentonthe three
intersections in the impact areaor on pedestrian and bicycle travel in the area.
2.10The Planning Commission finds that the application does not clearly demonstrate that the additional
traffic generated by the proposed marijuana retail use will not create a greater adverse material effect on
the livability of the impact area compared to the target use of general office. The Planning Commission
finds that the proposed marijuana retail use creates significantly more trips than the target use and the
application does not address the impact of the additional trips on the reported high volumes of pedestrian
and bicycle travel in the area, especially in spring, summer and early fall.Additionally, testimony received
reported conflicts between vehicle traffic and pedestrians and bicyclists in theA St. corridor. Outside of
some suggested improvements to the A St./Oak St./VanNess Ave. intersection, the application doesn’t
include information on the reported conflicts or measures to address those situations. The Planning
Commission finds that the application does not address the reported higher volumes of all types of traffic
during the Oregon Shakespeare Festival and peak tourism season.Finally, the application does not
demonstrate that the cumulative effect of the proposal and future development in the vicinityon the
transportation system will not affect the future development of adjacent properties.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the request for a Conditional Use Permit for marijuana retail sales located at 181 A Stin Planning Action
2017-01911is not supported by evidence contained within the record.
Therefore, based on our overall findings and conclusionsincluded above,we denythe application in Planning
Action #2017-01911.
March13, 2018
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA #2017-01911
February 13, 2018
Page 9